So you're saying we might have a fighting chance against environmental depredation if instead of using government bullying, we used the private sector to buy those lands, so long as we could guarantee the money wouldn't go to bureaucrats?
You might want to look into libertarianism, as it has been saying that for a long time now, and it has very good arguments as to why it works better than the alternatives.
The 'buy up the land' thing can work without changing our form of government. Go ahead and buy the land! Set up a campaign/foundation to do so (many already exist).
The pope once said evolution can still be a fact without changing the belief system of the catholic church.
You can try and adapt your thinking that way, but it is never as smooth as a principled theory. In other words, the buy-up-land thing cannot work without changing our form of government, as you'd have to at least do away with the concept of eminent domain.
> The pope once said evolution can still be a fact without changing the belief system of the catholic church.
Off-topic, but was this a good example of a "non-smooth unprincipled adaptation"? I was taught evolution by Catholics and it never seemed incongruous, but I'm not versed in the history.
Meh. Catholics, unlike many Protestant groups in midwestern America, have neither the tradition of 'sola scriptura' nor a belief in the Bible as inerrant, infallible historical record (or, for that matter, in the infallibility of every single word uttered by the Pope). Mendel was a monk. Lemaître was a priest. Even the persecution of Galileo was more politically motivated (Urban VIII in his role as Italian nobility) than theological per se.
Norway is not footing the bill as it has no money. It had to take $150M from its citizens pockets. I'm not sure how many Norwegians agreed to use that money to buy up trees. If most of them did, I guess you could say that is democracy at work. Otherwise I don't see it.
Norway is an interesting case as most of that money comes from oil reserves that where unclaimed by private individuals so it's fairly accurate to call it Norway's money.
Further, democracy is far from a simple Y/N vote on every issue. People trade favors so it's Y/N on (trees)+(healthcare)+(police)+... and you vote on those blocks. At first glance this seems worse. However people don't care about all issues equally so trading a weak no for a vary strong yes is worth it to people. In the end it's the same basis for all forms of trade as people don't value everything equally so trade ends up as a net benefit.
> Norway is not footing the bill as it has no money. It had to take $150M from its citizens pockets.
There is no difference in English. When someone says "Manchester United scored three goals", it is understood that individual players on the team so named kicked the balls into the net. Noone is under the impression that the corporation Manchester United plc pushed the balls using psychokinesis.
You might want to look into libertarianism, as it has been saying that for a long time now, and it has very good arguments as to why it works better than the alternatives.